Ubuntu (for) vs. Windows 8 (against)
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2 - Arguement
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Both Microsoft and Canonical have received considerable flak for the default user interfaces in their respective OS'. In Microsoft's case, of course, it's the Modern UI, formerly known as Metro; in Canonical's case, it's Unity. Both are designed with touch screens in mind, and borrow heavily from the mobile world.
By removing the Start button and overhauling the way users interact with the operating system, Windows 8's Modern interface poses a considerable challenge for users, who face a significant learning curve.
Unity, on the other hand, became a default part of Ubuntu back in April 2011 with Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal." It has definitely undergone growing pains, but more than a year has passed, and Canonical has revised the interface accordingly. Although it still has numerous critics, most people concede that it has matured and improved. Some observers, in fact, have even suggested that it may feel more familiar to many long-time Windows users than does Windows 8.
Linux has long been known for its virtually limitless customizability, but given the current controversy surrounding desktop interfaces, that feature has become more salient than ever. This is a point on which Windows 8 and Ubuntu differ considerably. Yes, Windows 8 does allow users to customize some aspects of their environment, such as by specifying the size of Live Tile icons, moving commonly used tiles to the left side of the screen, or grouping tiles by program type. Most of the changes you can make in Windows 8, however, are largely cosmetic, and they don't include a built-in way to set the OS to boot to the traditional Windows desktop. A growing assortment of third-party utilities such as Pokki can restore that capability, but otherwise you're stuck with Modern UI. Windows 8 offers what you might call a "tightly coupled" interface"in other words, one that you can't change substantially.
Whereas Windows 8 Pro comes bundled with Microsoft's Internet Explorer 10 browser, Ubuntu comes with a wide assortment of open-source software packages such as Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice, and more, offering both individual and business users a pretty full suite of functionality. Beyond those bundled programs, both Ubuntu and Windows 8 offer app stores to help users find the additional software they need. Dating back to 2009, the Ubuntu Software Center now houses more than 40,000 apps, ranging from games to productivity tools to educational resources. In addition, by using Wine or CodeWeaver's CrossOver, you can run Windows programs on top of Linux.
While I love Linux (my favorite distro is even a fork of Ubuntu, thusly followed by Arch), I feel that Linux still isn't ready for widespread desktop adoption just yet, thusly making Windows 8 the "better" operating system.
Ubuntu is awesome for someone who is technologicly inclined like you or myself, and in other aplications such as computer labs and unspecialized workstations like those one could find in a library, however, this still doesn't account for Ubuntu being completly better than Windows 8.
As of right now, almost every government, buisness, and acidemic document standard is the .doc or .docx extention (Microsoft Word) and for spredsheets, the excel file extention, yes open office can read and edit Word and Excel files, but formating is still lost, which can be an issue, and while LibreOffice is avalible on Windows, not many are willing to be the forrunners in a massive switch form Word to Libre at this point in time as it doesn't seem like a direct gain to them.
Yes Ubuntu comes pre-packaged with Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice and other open source applications, but most, if not all of these are avalible on Windows and even Mac OS X as well, thus making the argument that because Ubuntu has software that can easily be downloaded if one desired it on Windows preinstalled with the OS, it is obviously better.
The size of there perspective distrobution systems doesn't directly reflect which is better as the internet is a better method of distibuitng software tha eithe the Ubuntu Software Center or Microsofts Windows Store in my humble view.
Yes Wine and CrossOver are nice progams, but on a large scale such as in a Government institution, place of commerce, or Institution of Academia as the happenstance of breaking EULAs is present, and can cause major issues for not only the IT department, but also the legal department.
The main thing that keeps me from jumping to the Linux side of things via the fork of Ubuntu that I prefer from Windows 8.1 and OS X is compadibilitiy with larg software titles such as Adobe's Photoshop, Lightroom, and After Effects, Apple's Final Cut Pro, and Microsoft Office. These pieces of software are needed for my workflows, and with no decent alternative without using Wine to hack something together that may work now but not in a week is not something I, nor anyone else with time sensitive work can afford to deal with. Unitl decent alternatives are made on the Linux side of the fence, the bussness comounity, nor the creative communities can jump ship to Ubuntu or any Linux distrobution for that matter.
Also on a side note, if one is willing to get their hands dirty in the command lines and in the foundation of the operating system, Windows can be just about as custiomizable as Ubuntu. The Windows 8.1 update brought back the start button and improved the start "Modern" side of Windows considerably, and thirdparty programs such as "Start is Back" brought the Start button back in full with complete customization.
Ubuntu excels in some area, though as a wide spread "better" OS, it still lacks behind in terms of function, open source is nice, but it doesn't mean anything if you can't be fully productive.
Once Ubuntu/Linux becomes more popular as an open source OS, there is a chance that the Microsoft Office products may become compatible with Linux (depending on if Microsoft is willing to sell there software to another OS such as Ubuntu).
Ubuntu does come pre-packaged with Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice etc. which means that Ubuntu software providers do not want to charge people for programs that should be free such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel etc. Plus, Linux carries their OS at about 800MB, as Windows 8 is just over 1GB. Most would rather use the 200MB for some other program.
I do use Windows 7 on my HP Laptop because of the programs (After Effects, Photoshop etc.) compatibility. But my desktop at home is operating Ubuntu. I personally haven't used wine yet, because I just recently installed Ubuntu a few days ago.
So, I do have to agree with you about Linux using a lot of command lines, though most computer programmers would prefer using Ubuntu because of the flexibility of the OS.
I highly doubt Linux will take off in the mass private sector anytime soon, at this point in time, any open source operating system just doesn't hold up. at least not yet.
As for Adobe or Microsoft making software for Linux, you run into a possible ethical problem for users who turn to Ubuntu or any Linux distro that mater, if it make sense to run closed source software on a platform centered around openness?
For the time being, Windows has more capability and compatibility than Linux in every category from programming to media creation to productivity to content consumption. As of right now, you can't pay blu-rays on Linux without work arounds, as of right now triple A titles aren't available on Linux, as of right now industry standard software isn't available on Linux. It should also be said that DRM web plugins like Microsoft Silver light make it difficult, if not impossible to use services like Netflix on Ubuntu.
All operating systems have their strengths, OS X is amazing for content creation if you use Final Cut or do music production, Windows can get stuff done and then play games, and Linux can do a lot of bare bones raw computing tasks and has versatility in all sides of the field of computing, I just don't feel that Ubuntu is ready for prime time yet as the shift form Windows 7 to Windows 8 was jarring enough for most, that a shift from Windows to an entirely different platform would be alien.
A 200 Mb difference in OS size is a weak argument as these are the respective sizes of compressed disk image.
Reiterating my point, the pre-packaged software in Ubuntu can easily be downloaded on Windows as well, making it nothing special. The reason that these programs are free falls into the use of the GNU license and the fact that they are open source. Microsoft puts a lot into Office, considering it's more powerful than any other office suit I've used, I can understand paying a ~$150 for three or so programs that are industry standard in almost every industry when in comes to documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.
As for programming, it's more of a personal preference. I use OS X as my main OS along with XCode, Eclipse, Dreamweaver, and Android Studio for development. A friend of mine uses Windows 8.1 with Delphi Studio, and I know people who use Eclipse on Linux to do their programming, it all falls into personal preference.
In the end, whatever someone uses, as long as it gets the job done, it's the best OS for the job. I personally feel however, that at this point in time, one can do more with Windows 8 than Ubuntu in terms of productivity, creativity, and entertainment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision:
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.